Good post. I'll start with this up front: "how are we getting our current/near future vehicle assets anywhere, much less our fantasy armor. We need shipping and connectors. We used to have them."
1. Agree, the USMC needs something heavier than an LAV, MPC, ARV, et al.
2. Agree, the USMC needs something tracked, especially for assault and armor/heavy armor.
3. Agree, advanced materials open opportunity for valid weight reduction with increases in survivability for a given weight.
3. Disagree, the M1A1 was not always too heavy. The M1A1 brought survivable maneuver and firepower that exceeded the weight penalty. The weight of the M1, while grown over the years, was still manageable, especially with the bridging, connectors, engineering assets, and recovery systems available. I'll concede it was testing the limit of practical weight, but it was still manageable.
4. Disagree, 20 tons is too low for a maximum weight. Current LAV is about 12-14 tons. Sheridan was 15 tons. M24 was 20 tons and M41 was 25. If you stick to 20-30 tons, you are making an Assault Weapon / Scout Vehicle. Understand that and use it as such. For a tank, 45-50 tons is my guess of the spot where modern materials and capabilities will overlap to create a minimum viable tank, which will really be a light tank. For the USMC, the modern tank needs not just be a cannon and machinegun platform, it is a hardened C2ISR node (UAS/sUAS manager), the premier modern FIST Platform, a loitering munitions platform, and should be an EW node. If made too light, it will be a low grade assault weapon system and a waste of time and logistics over what is currently available or planned. Study what is optimum weight for balance of armor capabilities necessary to give Marine forces adequate armor capability.
5. Point, defining characteristic of a tank is that its survivability onion means it should have a high degree of survivability in direct gunfight if it is shot in the face, ie, it won't be a catastrophic kill. For a light tank, it has improved survivability over light / no-armor assets. This is a key ability across the spectrum of combat and conflict operations.
6. Point, there is infinite demand for the armor protected firepower and maneuver of a tank under combat conditions. (See - Russian and Ukrainian Operations).
7. Point, there is infinite demand for reduced weight and logistics under operations other than combat. The infantry and logisticians would optimally prefer an M1A1 that can be kept in a poke ball until needed. This is easily turned into a self licking ice cream cone where any weight, POL, ammo logistics is too much.
8. Point, Neither #6 nor #7 should be paid much attention; they are black holes that will suck energy. There is reasonable space between the two extremes.
Remark: globally, over the last 10 years, we have repeatedly seen forces with low weight armor/unarmored assets attempt to increase the weight / survivability of their platforms through any means necessary, or recreate ad hoc armor forces from whatever is available. (Battle of Marawi, ISIS, Ukraine), etc.
Throwing away the Marine Tank Battalions is an unbelievable organizational mistake degrading the Marine MAGTF concept. The “Comments” on the “CP-Advanced Armor” page highlights another problem with fixing the damage of the 2030 design. What tank do we use to replace the tank battalion’s capability and mission in the MAGTF? The QUICK and easily answer is to follow the US Army’s lead with their current M1 main battle tank. Procuring the tanks (and deciding which tank) is not the only problem. Training the tankers, leaders, mechanics, is the other issue that needs to be address along with logistic chains of replacement parts and modifications. The last I looked, the Marines use to send our tank fellows to US Army schools to learn their associated MOS. Let’s first re-establish the tank battalions as quickly as possible. We can continue the debate on technology and which tank as we fill the US Marine tank parks.
One additional post since we are talking about vehicles named for General Gray. In and around the 2000 time frame, aboard MCRD Parris Island, there was a unique Orange Charger owned by a Drill Instructor on the base. This Challenger in most aspects resembled the fabled General Lee from the original 'Dukes of Hazard' television show. It differed in that the roof was painted with the USMC Flag and 'General Gray' along the sides of the flag. I seem to recall that the horn had the option to play the first notes of the Marine's Hymn. This car was known as 'The General Gray'. It was a familiar and happy sight about the Depot in those halcyon days.
The Marine Corps has gotten rid of our regular and reserve tank units and many of our artillery units. The idea is that we will be fighting on islands in the Pacific and that we are light infantry. Tanks are too heavy and too vulnerable. We can fight with missiles.
I think that is misguided. We fought major land wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows where we will fight again? We fight in every clime and place. Tanks and more arty may be needed.
And the Ukrainian Russian war is using many tanks, with calls for more tanks. They are losing many tanks to precision weapons, but they are still using them and they want more tanks. So here we have a war in 2023 and tanks and arty are still important.
I propose that the Marine Corps reconstitute our reserve tank units. Low cost insurance for an unknown future. The units can be dual hatted - used as tanks or infantry as needed. Every Marine is a rifleman, after all.
And we could do the same thing for our reserve arty units.
The sooner we do this, the better, while we can still get the gear back and
before we lose the expertise that we have.
And while we are at it, the Marine Corps should experiment with much smaller remote controlled ATV like tanks. Something that you can use for the assault, packing a great deal of firepower, but without a human crew. It can be much smaller and unarmored. Our reserve tank units could field these,
The article about the "metal foam" was written in 2018. The only testing shown is a small video of M2 armor piercing round against a 1" piece of the plate.
What other testing has been done in the past 6 years? I will admit the possibilities of this are amazing....but the proof is in the pudding. Lets see some results of follow on testing before hyperventliating.
A quick Google search has turned up a lot of information. In one test "The blast tests were conducted at the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate in Fort Eustis, Virginia. Three 23 × 152 mm High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds were used. "
Take a look at Israel's Eitan AFV capable of moving at 60mph and range of 600 miles. Or the Finno Swedish AMOS. With drone Swarms, Long Range Non Line of Site Missiles and laser guided Mortar Rounds I'd question the value of Abrams size tracked vehicles. The Marines and Army need mobility - but lighter weight, highly mobile wheeled AFVs - for counter-drone, anti-tank, artillery, C2, and Infantry Support might be the way to go. These vehicles are capable of launching drones, engaging targets on the move beyond LOS ranges and capable of rapid reload or autonomous operation. Combined with killers like the RipSaw M5 I think this is the mobile force we need.
A great debate. Being an external observer I was stunned when the Corps lost its tank battalions. The key point most observers over look is that although drones and precision-strike weapons are a new threat. All threats have counter-measures and tanks are platforms upon which counter measures can be quickly added. Better to have the weight of EW jamming equipment carried by a tank rather than an infantry soldier. Likewise kinetic counter-measures are quickly coming online. The tank still provides a balance of firepower, protection and mobility that is second to none on the battlefield. People have cited recent operations like the Battle of Fallujah or even Hue but looking further back at island battles of the Pacific War tanks played an important role supporting Marines. In the 1930s experts argued that the anti-tank gun would kill the tank! It did not and drones won't either.
It’s interesting to consider that in two of the larger urban close quarters combat battles of note in the last 50 plus years, Hue and Fallujah, tanks were integral in the fight the Marines were conducting. I went to college with a veteran of the Battle Hue, he is famously memorialized in a photo in Life magazine riding on a M-48/M-60? carrying wounded Marines out or away from the battle space. He was happy to be hitch hiking that day…..We need a tank. The advantage of FD2030 and the “Divest to Invest” effort is that this careless and capricious behavior has lead to a stout discussion of what the size and configuration of the next main armored vehicle ought to look like and how many does the Corps need. Start at the top, we are supposed to be meeting the Title X mandates. How does the MAGTF configure itself to do that, well to be sure the MAGTF isn’t going to want to go ashore without armor. Weight has always been an issue, but somehow it has always been considered by the logistics teams when making the load out and landing plan sequences. It may have been difficult, but no one complained when the armor arrived. The M-60 exhaust ports were also very handy when heating canteen cups of water for real coffee. That alone is reason enough to have armor.
Marines and soldiers need some type of mobile, armored protected, heavy direct fire support. The Marine Corps needs this now. In my opinion, the Italian Centauro II and Swedish CV90-120, are good examples of what Marines need.
"Tanks" a lot for publishing this. I have always been concerned with the weight but appreciated the combat power they provide. This new lightweight steel might just be the answer if only we can get some to run with the idea.
God Bless General Gray. Here in Ocean County, New Jersey...We know a thousand shades and the EMS. Old Crows own this real estate. A shout out to the CHP grunts between Monterrey and VAB, working the forefront that thing of ous Gray helped make reality. Smooth sailing Jersey Boy!
Good post. I'll start with this up front: "how are we getting our current/near future vehicle assets anywhere, much less our fantasy armor. We need shipping and connectors. We used to have them."
1. Agree, the USMC needs something heavier than an LAV, MPC, ARV, et al.
2. Agree, the USMC needs something tracked, especially for assault and armor/heavy armor.
3. Agree, advanced materials open opportunity for valid weight reduction with increases in survivability for a given weight.
3. Disagree, the M1A1 was not always too heavy. The M1A1 brought survivable maneuver and firepower that exceeded the weight penalty. The weight of the M1, while grown over the years, was still manageable, especially with the bridging, connectors, engineering assets, and recovery systems available. I'll concede it was testing the limit of practical weight, but it was still manageable.
4. Disagree, 20 tons is too low for a maximum weight. Current LAV is about 12-14 tons. Sheridan was 15 tons. M24 was 20 tons and M41 was 25. If you stick to 20-30 tons, you are making an Assault Weapon / Scout Vehicle. Understand that and use it as such. For a tank, 45-50 tons is my guess of the spot where modern materials and capabilities will overlap to create a minimum viable tank, which will really be a light tank. For the USMC, the modern tank needs not just be a cannon and machinegun platform, it is a hardened C2ISR node (UAS/sUAS manager), the premier modern FIST Platform, a loitering munitions platform, and should be an EW node. If made too light, it will be a low grade assault weapon system and a waste of time and logistics over what is currently available or planned. Study what is optimum weight for balance of armor capabilities necessary to give Marine forces adequate armor capability.
5. Point, defining characteristic of a tank is that its survivability onion means it should have a high degree of survivability in direct gunfight if it is shot in the face, ie, it won't be a catastrophic kill. For a light tank, it has improved survivability over light / no-armor assets. This is a key ability across the spectrum of combat and conflict operations.
6. Point, there is infinite demand for the armor protected firepower and maneuver of a tank under combat conditions. (See - Russian and Ukrainian Operations).
7. Point, there is infinite demand for reduced weight and logistics under operations other than combat. The infantry and logisticians would optimally prefer an M1A1 that can be kept in a poke ball until needed. This is easily turned into a self licking ice cream cone where any weight, POL, ammo logistics is too much.
8. Point, Neither #6 nor #7 should be paid much attention; they are black holes that will suck energy. There is reasonable space between the two extremes.
Remark: globally, over the last 10 years, we have repeatedly seen forces with low weight armor/unarmored assets attempt to increase the weight / survivability of their platforms through any means necessary, or recreate ad hoc armor forces from whatever is available. (Battle of Marawi, ISIS, Ukraine), etc.
[cFrog going back under his Lilly pad now...]
Tanks
Throwing away the Marine Tank Battalions is an unbelievable organizational mistake degrading the Marine MAGTF concept. The “Comments” on the “CP-Advanced Armor” page highlights another problem with fixing the damage of the 2030 design. What tank do we use to replace the tank battalion’s capability and mission in the MAGTF? The QUICK and easily answer is to follow the US Army’s lead with their current M1 main battle tank. Procuring the tanks (and deciding which tank) is not the only problem. Training the tankers, leaders, mechanics, is the other issue that needs to be address along with logistic chains of replacement parts and modifications. The last I looked, the Marines use to send our tank fellows to US Army schools to learn their associated MOS. Let’s first re-establish the tank battalions as quickly as possible. We can continue the debate on technology and which tank as we fill the US Marine tank parks.
One additional post since we are talking about vehicles named for General Gray. In and around the 2000 time frame, aboard MCRD Parris Island, there was a unique Orange Charger owned by a Drill Instructor on the base. This Challenger in most aspects resembled the fabled General Lee from the original 'Dukes of Hazard' television show. It differed in that the roof was painted with the USMC Flag and 'General Gray' along the sides of the flag. I seem to recall that the horn had the option to play the first notes of the Marine's Hymn. This car was known as 'The General Gray'. It was a familiar and happy sight about the Depot in those halcyon days.
Outstanding Article!
The Marine Corps has gotten rid of our regular and reserve tank units and many of our artillery units. The idea is that we will be fighting on islands in the Pacific and that we are light infantry. Tanks are too heavy and too vulnerable. We can fight with missiles.
I think that is misguided. We fought major land wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows where we will fight again? We fight in every clime and place. Tanks and more arty may be needed.
And the Ukrainian Russian war is using many tanks, with calls for more tanks. They are losing many tanks to precision weapons, but they are still using them and they want more tanks. So here we have a war in 2023 and tanks and arty are still important.
I propose that the Marine Corps reconstitute our reserve tank units. Low cost insurance for an unknown future. The units can be dual hatted - used as tanks or infantry as needed. Every Marine is a rifleman, after all.
And we could do the same thing for our reserve arty units.
The sooner we do this, the better, while we can still get the gear back and
before we lose the expertise that we have.
And while we are at it, the Marine Corps should experiment with much smaller remote controlled ATV like tanks. Something that you can use for the assault, packing a great deal of firepower, but without a human crew. It can be much smaller and unarmored. Our reserve tank units could field these,
More at: https://marinetanks.blogspot.com/
Semper Fi
The article about the "metal foam" was written in 2018. The only testing shown is a small video of M2 armor piercing round against a 1" piece of the plate.
What other testing has been done in the past 6 years? I will admit the possibilities of this are amazing....but the proof is in the pudding. Lets see some results of follow on testing before hyperventliating.
A quick Google search has turned up a lot of information. In one test "The blast tests were conducted at the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate in Fort Eustis, Virginia. Three 23 × 152 mm High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds were used. "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263822317332956?via%3Dihub
However, the article cuts off before they tell the results of that testing. This testing was done in 2018.
The below link has links to many different tests that were done to the material.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-65249-4_13
Now, the question is....if it works, why isn't the Army using it on their Booker "light" tank?
https://advancemnm.com/our-product-services/
A place that sells the product.
Take a look at Israel's Eitan AFV capable of moving at 60mph and range of 600 miles. Or the Finno Swedish AMOS. With drone Swarms, Long Range Non Line of Site Missiles and laser guided Mortar Rounds I'd question the value of Abrams size tracked vehicles. The Marines and Army need mobility - but lighter weight, highly mobile wheeled AFVs - for counter-drone, anti-tank, artillery, C2, and Infantry Support might be the way to go. These vehicles are capable of launching drones, engaging targets on the move beyond LOS ranges and capable of rapid reload or autonomous operation. Combined with killers like the RipSaw M5 I think this is the mobile force we need.
A great debate. Being an external observer I was stunned when the Corps lost its tank battalions. The key point most observers over look is that although drones and precision-strike weapons are a new threat. All threats have counter-measures and tanks are platforms upon which counter measures can be quickly added. Better to have the weight of EW jamming equipment carried by a tank rather than an infantry soldier. Likewise kinetic counter-measures are quickly coming online. The tank still provides a balance of firepower, protection and mobility that is second to none on the battlefield. People have cited recent operations like the Battle of Fallujah or even Hue but looking further back at island battles of the Pacific War tanks played an important role supporting Marines. In the 1930s experts argued that the anti-tank gun would kill the tank! It did not and drones won't either.
It’s interesting to consider that in two of the larger urban close quarters combat battles of note in the last 50 plus years, Hue and Fallujah, tanks were integral in the fight the Marines were conducting. I went to college with a veteran of the Battle Hue, he is famously memorialized in a photo in Life magazine riding on a M-48/M-60? carrying wounded Marines out or away from the battle space. He was happy to be hitch hiking that day…..We need a tank. The advantage of FD2030 and the “Divest to Invest” effort is that this careless and capricious behavior has lead to a stout discussion of what the size and configuration of the next main armored vehicle ought to look like and how many does the Corps need. Start at the top, we are supposed to be meeting the Title X mandates. How does the MAGTF configure itself to do that, well to be sure the MAGTF isn’t going to want to go ashore without armor. Weight has always been an issue, but somehow it has always been considered by the logistics teams when making the load out and landing plan sequences. It may have been difficult, but no one complained when the armor arrived. The M-60 exhaust ports were also very handy when heating canteen cups of water for real coffee. That alone is reason enough to have armor.
Marines and soldiers need some type of mobile, armored protected, heavy direct fire support. The Marine Corps needs this now. In my opinion, the Italian Centauro II and Swedish CV90-120, are good examples of what Marines need.
"Tanks" a lot for publishing this. I have always been concerned with the weight but appreciated the combat power they provide. This new lightweight steel might just be the answer if only we can get some to run with the idea.
God Bless General Gray. Here in Ocean County, New Jersey...We know a thousand shades and the EMS. Old Crows own this real estate. A shout out to the CHP grunts between Monterrey and VAB, working the forefront that thing of ous Gray helped make reality. Smooth sailing Jersey Boy!